Planetary cave: Gravity inside a non-concentric shell











up vote
7
down vote

favorite












There are several previous questions concerning concentric shells. I won't reference them here because this is different.



I understand that there is no gravitational effect inside a concentric shell*. But what about a non-concentric one?



enter image description here



Research



I've looked online and found nothing. Maybe I'm just using the wrong search terms?



Question



I'd like to have a cavity inside a small planet. Assuming perfect spheres and uniform density, is there a general equation for the gravitational field inside the cavity, taking into account:




  • The radius of the solid sphere

  • The radius of the hollow spherical cavity

  • The offset between centres.


Supplementary



If no exact solution exists, is there an approximate formula that will let me play with the variables to get a rough idea of the effects?





*Shell Theorem




In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational
simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a
spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application
to astronomy ... A spherically symmetric body affects external objects
gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point
at its centre. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a
hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on
any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the
shell.











share|improve this question














This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.














  • You have been amazingly prolific lately. 1) How do you come up with these questions? and, 2) Are these questions 'real' or just a way to give us something to do at work? 8^D
    – Tracy Cramer
    9 hours ago












  • No time for a real answer, but Gauss’ law is a good thing to research here.
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    @Tracy Cramer - I'm one of those people who comes up with loads of ideas but can never be bothered to turn them into stories. I'd make a terrible author. This my outlet for an over fertile imagination! P.S. If anyone wants to use any of my ideas, they're welcome to :-) P.P.S. I've actually got a backlog, I've just got to formulate them properly.
    – chasly from UK
    6 hours ago












  • As a bit of a simplifcation for the fabulous answers you're getting. Take a compass and draw a circle from the center of the cave with a radius from that point to the closest outer surface. Remove all of that. Per the shell theorem, it all cancels out. What's left is the gravitational force you might feel (enter the complex mathematics).
    – JBH
    5 hours ago

















up vote
7
down vote

favorite












There are several previous questions concerning concentric shells. I won't reference them here because this is different.



I understand that there is no gravitational effect inside a concentric shell*. But what about a non-concentric one?



enter image description here



Research



I've looked online and found nothing. Maybe I'm just using the wrong search terms?



Question



I'd like to have a cavity inside a small planet. Assuming perfect spheres and uniform density, is there a general equation for the gravitational field inside the cavity, taking into account:




  • The radius of the solid sphere

  • The radius of the hollow spherical cavity

  • The offset between centres.


Supplementary



If no exact solution exists, is there an approximate formula that will let me play with the variables to get a rough idea of the effects?





*Shell Theorem




In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational
simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a
spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application
to astronomy ... A spherically symmetric body affects external objects
gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point
at its centre. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a
hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on
any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the
shell.











share|improve this question














This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.














  • You have been amazingly prolific lately. 1) How do you come up with these questions? and, 2) Are these questions 'real' or just a way to give us something to do at work? 8^D
    – Tracy Cramer
    9 hours ago












  • No time for a real answer, but Gauss’ law is a good thing to research here.
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    @Tracy Cramer - I'm one of those people who comes up with loads of ideas but can never be bothered to turn them into stories. I'd make a terrible author. This my outlet for an over fertile imagination! P.S. If anyone wants to use any of my ideas, they're welcome to :-) P.P.S. I've actually got a backlog, I've just got to formulate them properly.
    – chasly from UK
    6 hours ago












  • As a bit of a simplifcation for the fabulous answers you're getting. Take a compass and draw a circle from the center of the cave with a radius from that point to the closest outer surface. Remove all of that. Per the shell theorem, it all cancels out. What's left is the gravitational force you might feel (enter the complex mathematics).
    – JBH
    5 hours ago















up vote
7
down vote

favorite









up vote
7
down vote

favorite











There are several previous questions concerning concentric shells. I won't reference them here because this is different.



I understand that there is no gravitational effect inside a concentric shell*. But what about a non-concentric one?



enter image description here



Research



I've looked online and found nothing. Maybe I'm just using the wrong search terms?



Question



I'd like to have a cavity inside a small planet. Assuming perfect spheres and uniform density, is there a general equation for the gravitational field inside the cavity, taking into account:




  • The radius of the solid sphere

  • The radius of the hollow spherical cavity

  • The offset between centres.


Supplementary



If no exact solution exists, is there an approximate formula that will let me play with the variables to get a rough idea of the effects?





*Shell Theorem




In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational
simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a
spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application
to astronomy ... A spherically symmetric body affects external objects
gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point
at its centre. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a
hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on
any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the
shell.











share|improve this question















There are several previous questions concerning concentric shells. I won't reference them here because this is different.



I understand that there is no gravitational effect inside a concentric shell*. But what about a non-concentric one?



enter image description here



Research



I've looked online and found nothing. Maybe I'm just using the wrong search terms?



Question



I'd like to have a cavity inside a small planet. Assuming perfect spheres and uniform density, is there a general equation for the gravitational field inside the cavity, taking into account:




  • The radius of the solid sphere

  • The radius of the hollow spherical cavity

  • The offset between centres.


Supplementary



If no exact solution exists, is there an approximate formula that will let me play with the variables to get a rough idea of the effects?





*Shell Theorem




In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational
simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a
spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application
to astronomy ... A spherically symmetric body affects external objects
gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point
at its centre. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a
hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on
any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the
shell.








planets physics hard-science gravity caves






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









HDE 226868

62.2k12215404




62.2k12215404










asked 9 hours ago









chasly from UK

8,59134187




8,59134187



This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.




This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.













  • You have been amazingly prolific lately. 1) How do you come up with these questions? and, 2) Are these questions 'real' or just a way to give us something to do at work? 8^D
    – Tracy Cramer
    9 hours ago












  • No time for a real answer, but Gauss’ law is a good thing to research here.
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    @Tracy Cramer - I'm one of those people who comes up with loads of ideas but can never be bothered to turn them into stories. I'd make a terrible author. This my outlet for an over fertile imagination! P.S. If anyone wants to use any of my ideas, they're welcome to :-) P.P.S. I've actually got a backlog, I've just got to formulate them properly.
    – chasly from UK
    6 hours ago












  • As a bit of a simplifcation for the fabulous answers you're getting. Take a compass and draw a circle from the center of the cave with a radius from that point to the closest outer surface. Remove all of that. Per the shell theorem, it all cancels out. What's left is the gravitational force you might feel (enter the complex mathematics).
    – JBH
    5 hours ago




















  • You have been amazingly prolific lately. 1) How do you come up with these questions? and, 2) Are these questions 'real' or just a way to give us something to do at work? 8^D
    – Tracy Cramer
    9 hours ago












  • No time for a real answer, but Gauss’ law is a good thing to research here.
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    @Tracy Cramer - I'm one of those people who comes up with loads of ideas but can never be bothered to turn them into stories. I'd make a terrible author. This my outlet for an over fertile imagination! P.S. If anyone wants to use any of my ideas, they're welcome to :-) P.P.S. I've actually got a backlog, I've just got to formulate them properly.
    – chasly from UK
    6 hours ago












  • As a bit of a simplifcation for the fabulous answers you're getting. Take a compass and draw a circle from the center of the cave with a radius from that point to the closest outer surface. Remove all of that. Per the shell theorem, it all cancels out. What's left is the gravitational force you might feel (enter the complex mathematics).
    – JBH
    5 hours ago


















You have been amazingly prolific lately. 1) How do you come up with these questions? and, 2) Are these questions 'real' or just a way to give us something to do at work? 8^D
– Tracy Cramer
9 hours ago






You have been amazingly prolific lately. 1) How do you come up with these questions? and, 2) Are these questions 'real' or just a way to give us something to do at work? 8^D
– Tracy Cramer
9 hours ago














No time for a real answer, but Gauss’ law is a good thing to research here.
– Joe Bloggs
9 hours ago




No time for a real answer, but Gauss’ law is a good thing to research here.
– Joe Bloggs
9 hours ago




1




1




@Tracy Cramer - I'm one of those people who comes up with loads of ideas but can never be bothered to turn them into stories. I'd make a terrible author. This my outlet for an over fertile imagination! P.S. If anyone wants to use any of my ideas, they're welcome to :-) P.P.S. I've actually got a backlog, I've just got to formulate them properly.
– chasly from UK
6 hours ago






@Tracy Cramer - I'm one of those people who comes up with loads of ideas but can never be bothered to turn them into stories. I'd make a terrible author. This my outlet for an over fertile imagination! P.S. If anyone wants to use any of my ideas, they're welcome to :-) P.P.S. I've actually got a backlog, I've just got to formulate them properly.
– chasly from UK
6 hours ago














As a bit of a simplifcation for the fabulous answers you're getting. Take a compass and draw a circle from the center of the cave with a radius from that point to the closest outer surface. Remove all of that. Per the shell theorem, it all cancels out. What's left is the gravitational force you might feel (enter the complex mathematics).
– JBH
5 hours ago






As a bit of a simplifcation for the fabulous answers you're getting. Take a compass and draw a circle from the center of the cave with a radius from that point to the closest outer surface. Remove all of that. Per the shell theorem, it all cancels out. What's left is the gravitational force you might feel (enter the complex mathematics).
– JBH
5 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
11
down vote













The solution isn't actually too bad; I had this as a problem in AP physics in high school. It doesn't have as much symmetry to exploit as a concentric shell, but it still has a lot of symmetry--as long as the cave and the enclosing body are both spheres, and the enclosing body has uniform density, you can treat everything as rotationally symmetric around the line connecting their centers.



From there, you can treat the cave as a body of negative mass whose gravity is added to that of the enclosing body. The somewhat surprising end result is that gravity is constant inside a spherical cave, and antiparallel to the offset of the cave center from the enclosing body's center.



Because of the rotational symmetry, we can reduce the problem to two dimensions to show that the field is in fact constant everywhere in the cave.



Let the enclosing body have radius $R$ and density $rho$, the offset between centers be $d < R$, and the cave have radius $r < R - d$. The gravitational field inside a body of uniform density is $g propto rho x$. Expanded to 2 dimensions, the total gravitational force is $g propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}$, but broken down into vector components we get $g_x propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}costheta = rho sqrt{x^2+y^2} frac{x}{sqrt{x^2+y^2}} = rho x$, and similarly $g_y propto rho y$. The gravity due to the negative body that creates the cave when added to the enclosing body is $g_x propto -rho (x-d)$ and $g_y propto -rho y$. Adding these together, we get the summed components for the net gravity vector to be $g_x propto rho x - rho (x - d) = rho (x - (x - d)) = rho d$ (i.e., a non-zero constant), and $g_y propto rho y - rho y = 0$.



So, the total gravity is axis-aligned, constant, and dependent only on the density of the enclosing sphere and the eccentric distance. This is in fact the only way I know of to get an exact constant, uniform gravitational field with finite amounts of material (the infinite option being the space above an infinite plane).



To get the actual force (not just a factor it is proportional to), add a factor of $frac{4 pi G}{3}$ to get $g = frac{4 pi G}{3}rho d$.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Pretty sure this is right, got a headache in the process, so +1 and + resentment for throbbing sensation. Glad the maths was for a sphere, not oblate spheroid, or cavity "arbitrary amount off axis of spin" - noone needs that migrane.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    6 hours ago








  • 2




    I couldn't handle reading all those $o$'s, so I changed $o$ to $d$. You can roll back if you disapprove.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago










  • @Duckisaduckisaduck next up I'll need you to calculate this for a squircle.
    – Lord Farquaad
    4 hours ago










  • @Lord Farquaad Cuberoid surely? Damn, the throbbing's worse. Especially since someone will mention "no extended conversations" shortly, no doubt.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    4 hours ago












  • So $x$ and $y$ are in a coordinate system where the origin is the center of the enclosing sphere, I guess? And the cave's center is on the $x$ axis?
    – LarsH
    3 hours ago




















up vote
8
down vote













This is a classic problem in electrostatics - that is, in an analogous situation where we care about calculating the electric force on an object inside some cavity. The same solution technique applies for Newtonian gravity, and it relies on something called superposition. Effectively, the cavity is like a region of space inside a sphere of mass density $rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}$, inside which you've placed a smaller sphere of mass density $-rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}'$. In the region of intersection, the two densities cancel out, leaving you with a net density of $0$.



A simpler case



Say we have a body with uniform density $rho$. We can use something called Gauss's law for gravity. This shouldn't be confused with its cousin, Gauss's law for electrostatics - usually just called "Gauss's law" - or the underlying mathematical theorem behind them both, referred to as the divergence theorem or Gauss's theorem. Regardless of how you want to refer to it, the law goes like this:
$$int_{mathcal{S}}mathbf{g}cdotmathrm{d}mathbf{A}=-4pi Gint_{mathcal{V}}rhomathrm{d}V$$
where $mathcal{V}$ is a surface with boundary $mathcal{S}$, $mathbf{g}$ is the gravitational field and $dmathbf{A}$ is an area element. Then, in our case of a uniform sphere,
$$g(r)cdot4pi r^2=-4pi Grhofrac{4pi}{3}r^3$$
and
$$g(r)=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}r$$
We know that $mathrm{d}mathbf{A}$ points radially outwards, so does $mathbf{g}$ by spherical symmetry, and so
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}mathbf{r}$$
as claimed.



Modeling the cave



The principle of superposition says that to calculate the gravitational field due to two objects, we can simply add the gravitational fields created by each object. Let's call these fields $mathbf{g}_+$ and $mathbf{g}_-$, coming from the sphere of density $rho$ and the sphere of density $-rho$, respectively. Now we just apply the result from the last section:
$$mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}),quadmathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}')$$
The total gravitational fields is then
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})+mathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}')$$
which is constant, though non-zero. Notice that if the spheres are concentric, $mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}'=mathbf{0}$ and the field vanishes - the same result as the good old shell theorem.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Terminology alert! You're actually applying divergence theorem (which, according to Wikipdia, is itself sometimes called Gauss's theorem, though I've never heard that) to gravity, whereas Gauss's law is application of the same divergence theorem to electrostatics. Divergence theorem is itself a specialized case of Stokes' theorem, which is how I would have described your method.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion I've always heard this particular usage referred to as Gauss's law, too (note the Wikipedia page I linked too, as well as many notes online on this particular problem) - perhaps with the qualifier that it's Gauss's law for gravity. In my mind, the divergence theorem is the more general case of an arbitrary vector field $mathbf{F}$, without identifying, say, $nablacdotmathbf{F}$ or $mathbf{F}cdotmathbf{hat{n}}mathrm{d}A$ as another physical quantity of interest.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago












  • Wow, there is a "Gauss's law for gravity." They will name anything after that guy, I swear. That is really a super confusing terminology, given that the mathematical principals have their own names...
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion Honestly, it's almost as confusing as the term "Euler's equation", which can apply to half a dozen different identities and laws. . . I'll make some edits to make things maybe a bit clearer, though - thanks for the input.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131682%2fplanetary-cave-gravity-inside-a-non-concentric-shell%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
11
down vote













The solution isn't actually too bad; I had this as a problem in AP physics in high school. It doesn't have as much symmetry to exploit as a concentric shell, but it still has a lot of symmetry--as long as the cave and the enclosing body are both spheres, and the enclosing body has uniform density, you can treat everything as rotationally symmetric around the line connecting their centers.



From there, you can treat the cave as a body of negative mass whose gravity is added to that of the enclosing body. The somewhat surprising end result is that gravity is constant inside a spherical cave, and antiparallel to the offset of the cave center from the enclosing body's center.



Because of the rotational symmetry, we can reduce the problem to two dimensions to show that the field is in fact constant everywhere in the cave.



Let the enclosing body have radius $R$ and density $rho$, the offset between centers be $d < R$, and the cave have radius $r < R - d$. The gravitational field inside a body of uniform density is $g propto rho x$. Expanded to 2 dimensions, the total gravitational force is $g propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}$, but broken down into vector components we get $g_x propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}costheta = rho sqrt{x^2+y^2} frac{x}{sqrt{x^2+y^2}} = rho x$, and similarly $g_y propto rho y$. The gravity due to the negative body that creates the cave when added to the enclosing body is $g_x propto -rho (x-d)$ and $g_y propto -rho y$. Adding these together, we get the summed components for the net gravity vector to be $g_x propto rho x - rho (x - d) = rho (x - (x - d)) = rho d$ (i.e., a non-zero constant), and $g_y propto rho y - rho y = 0$.



So, the total gravity is axis-aligned, constant, and dependent only on the density of the enclosing sphere and the eccentric distance. This is in fact the only way I know of to get an exact constant, uniform gravitational field with finite amounts of material (the infinite option being the space above an infinite plane).



To get the actual force (not just a factor it is proportional to), add a factor of $frac{4 pi G}{3}$ to get $g = frac{4 pi G}{3}rho d$.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Pretty sure this is right, got a headache in the process, so +1 and + resentment for throbbing sensation. Glad the maths was for a sphere, not oblate spheroid, or cavity "arbitrary amount off axis of spin" - noone needs that migrane.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    6 hours ago








  • 2




    I couldn't handle reading all those $o$'s, so I changed $o$ to $d$. You can roll back if you disapprove.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago










  • @Duckisaduckisaduck next up I'll need you to calculate this for a squircle.
    – Lord Farquaad
    4 hours ago










  • @Lord Farquaad Cuberoid surely? Damn, the throbbing's worse. Especially since someone will mention "no extended conversations" shortly, no doubt.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    4 hours ago












  • So $x$ and $y$ are in a coordinate system where the origin is the center of the enclosing sphere, I guess? And the cave's center is on the $x$ axis?
    – LarsH
    3 hours ago

















up vote
11
down vote













The solution isn't actually too bad; I had this as a problem in AP physics in high school. It doesn't have as much symmetry to exploit as a concentric shell, but it still has a lot of symmetry--as long as the cave and the enclosing body are both spheres, and the enclosing body has uniform density, you can treat everything as rotationally symmetric around the line connecting their centers.



From there, you can treat the cave as a body of negative mass whose gravity is added to that of the enclosing body. The somewhat surprising end result is that gravity is constant inside a spherical cave, and antiparallel to the offset of the cave center from the enclosing body's center.



Because of the rotational symmetry, we can reduce the problem to two dimensions to show that the field is in fact constant everywhere in the cave.



Let the enclosing body have radius $R$ and density $rho$, the offset between centers be $d < R$, and the cave have radius $r < R - d$. The gravitational field inside a body of uniform density is $g propto rho x$. Expanded to 2 dimensions, the total gravitational force is $g propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}$, but broken down into vector components we get $g_x propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}costheta = rho sqrt{x^2+y^2} frac{x}{sqrt{x^2+y^2}} = rho x$, and similarly $g_y propto rho y$. The gravity due to the negative body that creates the cave when added to the enclosing body is $g_x propto -rho (x-d)$ and $g_y propto -rho y$. Adding these together, we get the summed components for the net gravity vector to be $g_x propto rho x - rho (x - d) = rho (x - (x - d)) = rho d$ (i.e., a non-zero constant), and $g_y propto rho y - rho y = 0$.



So, the total gravity is axis-aligned, constant, and dependent only on the density of the enclosing sphere and the eccentric distance. This is in fact the only way I know of to get an exact constant, uniform gravitational field with finite amounts of material (the infinite option being the space above an infinite plane).



To get the actual force (not just a factor it is proportional to), add a factor of $frac{4 pi G}{3}$ to get $g = frac{4 pi G}{3}rho d$.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Pretty sure this is right, got a headache in the process, so +1 and + resentment for throbbing sensation. Glad the maths was for a sphere, not oblate spheroid, or cavity "arbitrary amount off axis of spin" - noone needs that migrane.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    6 hours ago








  • 2




    I couldn't handle reading all those $o$'s, so I changed $o$ to $d$. You can roll back if you disapprove.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago










  • @Duckisaduckisaduck next up I'll need you to calculate this for a squircle.
    – Lord Farquaad
    4 hours ago










  • @Lord Farquaad Cuberoid surely? Damn, the throbbing's worse. Especially since someone will mention "no extended conversations" shortly, no doubt.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    4 hours ago












  • So $x$ and $y$ are in a coordinate system where the origin is the center of the enclosing sphere, I guess? And the cave's center is on the $x$ axis?
    – LarsH
    3 hours ago















up vote
11
down vote










up vote
11
down vote









The solution isn't actually too bad; I had this as a problem in AP physics in high school. It doesn't have as much symmetry to exploit as a concentric shell, but it still has a lot of symmetry--as long as the cave and the enclosing body are both spheres, and the enclosing body has uniform density, you can treat everything as rotationally symmetric around the line connecting their centers.



From there, you can treat the cave as a body of negative mass whose gravity is added to that of the enclosing body. The somewhat surprising end result is that gravity is constant inside a spherical cave, and antiparallel to the offset of the cave center from the enclosing body's center.



Because of the rotational symmetry, we can reduce the problem to two dimensions to show that the field is in fact constant everywhere in the cave.



Let the enclosing body have radius $R$ and density $rho$, the offset between centers be $d < R$, and the cave have radius $r < R - d$. The gravitational field inside a body of uniform density is $g propto rho x$. Expanded to 2 dimensions, the total gravitational force is $g propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}$, but broken down into vector components we get $g_x propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}costheta = rho sqrt{x^2+y^2} frac{x}{sqrt{x^2+y^2}} = rho x$, and similarly $g_y propto rho y$. The gravity due to the negative body that creates the cave when added to the enclosing body is $g_x propto -rho (x-d)$ and $g_y propto -rho y$. Adding these together, we get the summed components for the net gravity vector to be $g_x propto rho x - rho (x - d) = rho (x - (x - d)) = rho d$ (i.e., a non-zero constant), and $g_y propto rho y - rho y = 0$.



So, the total gravity is axis-aligned, constant, and dependent only on the density of the enclosing sphere and the eccentric distance. This is in fact the only way I know of to get an exact constant, uniform gravitational field with finite amounts of material (the infinite option being the space above an infinite plane).



To get the actual force (not just a factor it is proportional to), add a factor of $frac{4 pi G}{3}$ to get $g = frac{4 pi G}{3}rho d$.






share|improve this answer














The solution isn't actually too bad; I had this as a problem in AP physics in high school. It doesn't have as much symmetry to exploit as a concentric shell, but it still has a lot of symmetry--as long as the cave and the enclosing body are both spheres, and the enclosing body has uniform density, you can treat everything as rotationally symmetric around the line connecting their centers.



From there, you can treat the cave as a body of negative mass whose gravity is added to that of the enclosing body. The somewhat surprising end result is that gravity is constant inside a spherical cave, and antiparallel to the offset of the cave center from the enclosing body's center.



Because of the rotational symmetry, we can reduce the problem to two dimensions to show that the field is in fact constant everywhere in the cave.



Let the enclosing body have radius $R$ and density $rho$, the offset between centers be $d < R$, and the cave have radius $r < R - d$. The gravitational field inside a body of uniform density is $g propto rho x$. Expanded to 2 dimensions, the total gravitational force is $g propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}$, but broken down into vector components we get $g_x propto rho sqrt{x^2+y^2}costheta = rho sqrt{x^2+y^2} frac{x}{sqrt{x^2+y^2}} = rho x$, and similarly $g_y propto rho y$. The gravity due to the negative body that creates the cave when added to the enclosing body is $g_x propto -rho (x-d)$ and $g_y propto -rho y$. Adding these together, we get the summed components for the net gravity vector to be $g_x propto rho x - rho (x - d) = rho (x - (x - d)) = rho d$ (i.e., a non-zero constant), and $g_y propto rho y - rho y = 0$.



So, the total gravity is axis-aligned, constant, and dependent only on the density of the enclosing sphere and the eccentric distance. This is in fact the only way I know of to get an exact constant, uniform gravitational field with finite amounts of material (the infinite option being the space above an infinite plane).



To get the actual force (not just a factor it is proportional to), add a factor of $frac{4 pi G}{3}$ to get $g = frac{4 pi G}{3}rho d$.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 5 hours ago









kingledion

72.3k26244427




72.3k26244427










answered 8 hours ago









Logan R. Kearsley

9,63312949




9,63312949








  • 1




    Pretty sure this is right, got a headache in the process, so +1 and + resentment for throbbing sensation. Glad the maths was for a sphere, not oblate spheroid, or cavity "arbitrary amount off axis of spin" - noone needs that migrane.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    6 hours ago








  • 2




    I couldn't handle reading all those $o$'s, so I changed $o$ to $d$. You can roll back if you disapprove.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago










  • @Duckisaduckisaduck next up I'll need you to calculate this for a squircle.
    – Lord Farquaad
    4 hours ago










  • @Lord Farquaad Cuberoid surely? Damn, the throbbing's worse. Especially since someone will mention "no extended conversations" shortly, no doubt.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    4 hours ago












  • So $x$ and $y$ are in a coordinate system where the origin is the center of the enclosing sphere, I guess? And the cave's center is on the $x$ axis?
    – LarsH
    3 hours ago
















  • 1




    Pretty sure this is right, got a headache in the process, so +1 and + resentment for throbbing sensation. Glad the maths was for a sphere, not oblate spheroid, or cavity "arbitrary amount off axis of spin" - noone needs that migrane.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    6 hours ago








  • 2




    I couldn't handle reading all those $o$'s, so I changed $o$ to $d$. You can roll back if you disapprove.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago










  • @Duckisaduckisaduck next up I'll need you to calculate this for a squircle.
    – Lord Farquaad
    4 hours ago










  • @Lord Farquaad Cuberoid surely? Damn, the throbbing's worse. Especially since someone will mention "no extended conversations" shortly, no doubt.
    – Duckisaduckisaduck
    4 hours ago












  • So $x$ and $y$ are in a coordinate system where the origin is the center of the enclosing sphere, I guess? And the cave's center is on the $x$ axis?
    – LarsH
    3 hours ago










1




1




Pretty sure this is right, got a headache in the process, so +1 and + resentment for throbbing sensation. Glad the maths was for a sphere, not oblate spheroid, or cavity "arbitrary amount off axis of spin" - noone needs that migrane.
– Duckisaduckisaduck
6 hours ago






Pretty sure this is right, got a headache in the process, so +1 and + resentment for throbbing sensation. Glad the maths was for a sphere, not oblate spheroid, or cavity "arbitrary amount off axis of spin" - noone needs that migrane.
– Duckisaduckisaduck
6 hours ago






2




2




I couldn't handle reading all those $o$'s, so I changed $o$ to $d$. You can roll back if you disapprove.
– kingledion
5 hours ago




I couldn't handle reading all those $o$'s, so I changed $o$ to $d$. You can roll back if you disapprove.
– kingledion
5 hours ago












@Duckisaduckisaduck next up I'll need you to calculate this for a squircle.
– Lord Farquaad
4 hours ago




@Duckisaduckisaduck next up I'll need you to calculate this for a squircle.
– Lord Farquaad
4 hours ago












@Lord Farquaad Cuberoid surely? Damn, the throbbing's worse. Especially since someone will mention "no extended conversations" shortly, no doubt.
– Duckisaduckisaduck
4 hours ago






@Lord Farquaad Cuberoid surely? Damn, the throbbing's worse. Especially since someone will mention "no extended conversations" shortly, no doubt.
– Duckisaduckisaduck
4 hours ago














So $x$ and $y$ are in a coordinate system where the origin is the center of the enclosing sphere, I guess? And the cave's center is on the $x$ axis?
– LarsH
3 hours ago






So $x$ and $y$ are in a coordinate system where the origin is the center of the enclosing sphere, I guess? And the cave's center is on the $x$ axis?
– LarsH
3 hours ago












up vote
8
down vote













This is a classic problem in electrostatics - that is, in an analogous situation where we care about calculating the electric force on an object inside some cavity. The same solution technique applies for Newtonian gravity, and it relies on something called superposition. Effectively, the cavity is like a region of space inside a sphere of mass density $rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}$, inside which you've placed a smaller sphere of mass density $-rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}'$. In the region of intersection, the two densities cancel out, leaving you with a net density of $0$.



A simpler case



Say we have a body with uniform density $rho$. We can use something called Gauss's law for gravity. This shouldn't be confused with its cousin, Gauss's law for electrostatics - usually just called "Gauss's law" - or the underlying mathematical theorem behind them both, referred to as the divergence theorem or Gauss's theorem. Regardless of how you want to refer to it, the law goes like this:
$$int_{mathcal{S}}mathbf{g}cdotmathrm{d}mathbf{A}=-4pi Gint_{mathcal{V}}rhomathrm{d}V$$
where $mathcal{V}$ is a surface with boundary $mathcal{S}$, $mathbf{g}$ is the gravitational field and $dmathbf{A}$ is an area element. Then, in our case of a uniform sphere,
$$g(r)cdot4pi r^2=-4pi Grhofrac{4pi}{3}r^3$$
and
$$g(r)=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}r$$
We know that $mathrm{d}mathbf{A}$ points radially outwards, so does $mathbf{g}$ by spherical symmetry, and so
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}mathbf{r}$$
as claimed.



Modeling the cave



The principle of superposition says that to calculate the gravitational field due to two objects, we can simply add the gravitational fields created by each object. Let's call these fields $mathbf{g}_+$ and $mathbf{g}_-$, coming from the sphere of density $rho$ and the sphere of density $-rho$, respectively. Now we just apply the result from the last section:
$$mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}),quadmathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}')$$
The total gravitational fields is then
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})+mathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}')$$
which is constant, though non-zero. Notice that if the spheres are concentric, $mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}'=mathbf{0}$ and the field vanishes - the same result as the good old shell theorem.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Terminology alert! You're actually applying divergence theorem (which, according to Wikipdia, is itself sometimes called Gauss's theorem, though I've never heard that) to gravity, whereas Gauss's law is application of the same divergence theorem to electrostatics. Divergence theorem is itself a specialized case of Stokes' theorem, which is how I would have described your method.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion I've always heard this particular usage referred to as Gauss's law, too (note the Wikipedia page I linked too, as well as many notes online on this particular problem) - perhaps with the qualifier that it's Gauss's law for gravity. In my mind, the divergence theorem is the more general case of an arbitrary vector field $mathbf{F}$, without identifying, say, $nablacdotmathbf{F}$ or $mathbf{F}cdotmathbf{hat{n}}mathrm{d}A$ as another physical quantity of interest.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago












  • Wow, there is a "Gauss's law for gravity." They will name anything after that guy, I swear. That is really a super confusing terminology, given that the mathematical principals have their own names...
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion Honestly, it's almost as confusing as the term "Euler's equation", which can apply to half a dozen different identities and laws. . . I'll make some edits to make things maybe a bit clearer, though - thanks for the input.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago















up vote
8
down vote













This is a classic problem in electrostatics - that is, in an analogous situation where we care about calculating the electric force on an object inside some cavity. The same solution technique applies for Newtonian gravity, and it relies on something called superposition. Effectively, the cavity is like a region of space inside a sphere of mass density $rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}$, inside which you've placed a smaller sphere of mass density $-rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}'$. In the region of intersection, the two densities cancel out, leaving you with a net density of $0$.



A simpler case



Say we have a body with uniform density $rho$. We can use something called Gauss's law for gravity. This shouldn't be confused with its cousin, Gauss's law for electrostatics - usually just called "Gauss's law" - or the underlying mathematical theorem behind them both, referred to as the divergence theorem or Gauss's theorem. Regardless of how you want to refer to it, the law goes like this:
$$int_{mathcal{S}}mathbf{g}cdotmathrm{d}mathbf{A}=-4pi Gint_{mathcal{V}}rhomathrm{d}V$$
where $mathcal{V}$ is a surface with boundary $mathcal{S}$, $mathbf{g}$ is the gravitational field and $dmathbf{A}$ is an area element. Then, in our case of a uniform sphere,
$$g(r)cdot4pi r^2=-4pi Grhofrac{4pi}{3}r^3$$
and
$$g(r)=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}r$$
We know that $mathrm{d}mathbf{A}$ points radially outwards, so does $mathbf{g}$ by spherical symmetry, and so
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}mathbf{r}$$
as claimed.



Modeling the cave



The principle of superposition says that to calculate the gravitational field due to two objects, we can simply add the gravitational fields created by each object. Let's call these fields $mathbf{g}_+$ and $mathbf{g}_-$, coming from the sphere of density $rho$ and the sphere of density $-rho$, respectively. Now we just apply the result from the last section:
$$mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}),quadmathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}')$$
The total gravitational fields is then
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})+mathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}')$$
which is constant, though non-zero. Notice that if the spheres are concentric, $mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}'=mathbf{0}$ and the field vanishes - the same result as the good old shell theorem.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Terminology alert! You're actually applying divergence theorem (which, according to Wikipdia, is itself sometimes called Gauss's theorem, though I've never heard that) to gravity, whereas Gauss's law is application of the same divergence theorem to electrostatics. Divergence theorem is itself a specialized case of Stokes' theorem, which is how I would have described your method.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion I've always heard this particular usage referred to as Gauss's law, too (note the Wikipedia page I linked too, as well as many notes online on this particular problem) - perhaps with the qualifier that it's Gauss's law for gravity. In my mind, the divergence theorem is the more general case of an arbitrary vector field $mathbf{F}$, without identifying, say, $nablacdotmathbf{F}$ or $mathbf{F}cdotmathbf{hat{n}}mathrm{d}A$ as another physical quantity of interest.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago












  • Wow, there is a "Gauss's law for gravity." They will name anything after that guy, I swear. That is really a super confusing terminology, given that the mathematical principals have their own names...
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion Honestly, it's almost as confusing as the term "Euler's equation", which can apply to half a dozen different identities and laws. . . I'll make some edits to make things maybe a bit clearer, though - thanks for the input.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago













up vote
8
down vote










up vote
8
down vote









This is a classic problem in electrostatics - that is, in an analogous situation where we care about calculating the electric force on an object inside some cavity. The same solution technique applies for Newtonian gravity, and it relies on something called superposition. Effectively, the cavity is like a region of space inside a sphere of mass density $rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}$, inside which you've placed a smaller sphere of mass density $-rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}'$. In the region of intersection, the two densities cancel out, leaving you with a net density of $0$.



A simpler case



Say we have a body with uniform density $rho$. We can use something called Gauss's law for gravity. This shouldn't be confused with its cousin, Gauss's law for electrostatics - usually just called "Gauss's law" - or the underlying mathematical theorem behind them both, referred to as the divergence theorem or Gauss's theorem. Regardless of how you want to refer to it, the law goes like this:
$$int_{mathcal{S}}mathbf{g}cdotmathrm{d}mathbf{A}=-4pi Gint_{mathcal{V}}rhomathrm{d}V$$
where $mathcal{V}$ is a surface with boundary $mathcal{S}$, $mathbf{g}$ is the gravitational field and $dmathbf{A}$ is an area element. Then, in our case of a uniform sphere,
$$g(r)cdot4pi r^2=-4pi Grhofrac{4pi}{3}r^3$$
and
$$g(r)=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}r$$
We know that $mathrm{d}mathbf{A}$ points radially outwards, so does $mathbf{g}$ by spherical symmetry, and so
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}mathbf{r}$$
as claimed.



Modeling the cave



The principle of superposition says that to calculate the gravitational field due to two objects, we can simply add the gravitational fields created by each object. Let's call these fields $mathbf{g}_+$ and $mathbf{g}_-$, coming from the sphere of density $rho$ and the sphere of density $-rho$, respectively. Now we just apply the result from the last section:
$$mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}),quadmathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}')$$
The total gravitational fields is then
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})+mathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}')$$
which is constant, though non-zero. Notice that if the spheres are concentric, $mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}'=mathbf{0}$ and the field vanishes - the same result as the good old shell theorem.






share|improve this answer














This is a classic problem in electrostatics - that is, in an analogous situation where we care about calculating the electric force on an object inside some cavity. The same solution technique applies for Newtonian gravity, and it relies on something called superposition. Effectively, the cavity is like a region of space inside a sphere of mass density $rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}$, inside which you've placed a smaller sphere of mass density $-rho$ centered at a point $mathbf{p}'$. In the region of intersection, the two densities cancel out, leaving you with a net density of $0$.



A simpler case



Say we have a body with uniform density $rho$. We can use something called Gauss's law for gravity. This shouldn't be confused with its cousin, Gauss's law for electrostatics - usually just called "Gauss's law" - or the underlying mathematical theorem behind them both, referred to as the divergence theorem or Gauss's theorem. Regardless of how you want to refer to it, the law goes like this:
$$int_{mathcal{S}}mathbf{g}cdotmathrm{d}mathbf{A}=-4pi Gint_{mathcal{V}}rhomathrm{d}V$$
where $mathcal{V}$ is a surface with boundary $mathcal{S}$, $mathbf{g}$ is the gravitational field and $dmathbf{A}$ is an area element. Then, in our case of a uniform sphere,
$$g(r)cdot4pi r^2=-4pi Grhofrac{4pi}{3}r^3$$
and
$$g(r)=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}r$$
We know that $mathrm{d}mathbf{A}$ points radially outwards, so does $mathbf{g}$ by spherical symmetry, and so
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}mathbf{r}$$
as claimed.



Modeling the cave



The principle of superposition says that to calculate the gravitational field due to two objects, we can simply add the gravitational fields created by each object. Let's call these fields $mathbf{g}_+$ and $mathbf{g}_-$, coming from the sphere of density $rho$ and the sphere of density $-rho$, respectively. Now we just apply the result from the last section:
$$mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}),quadmathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{r}-mathbf{p}')$$
The total gravitational fields is then
$$mathbf{g}(mathbf{r})=mathbf{g}_+(mathbf{r})+mathbf{g}_-(mathbf{r})=-frac{4pi Grho}{3}(mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}')$$
which is constant, though non-zero. Notice that if the spheres are concentric, $mathbf{p}-mathbf{p}'=mathbf{0}$ and the field vanishes - the same result as the good old shell theorem.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 5 hours ago

























answered 7 hours ago









HDE 226868

62.2k12215404




62.2k12215404








  • 1




    Terminology alert! You're actually applying divergence theorem (which, according to Wikipdia, is itself sometimes called Gauss's theorem, though I've never heard that) to gravity, whereas Gauss's law is application of the same divergence theorem to electrostatics. Divergence theorem is itself a specialized case of Stokes' theorem, which is how I would have described your method.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion I've always heard this particular usage referred to as Gauss's law, too (note the Wikipedia page I linked too, as well as many notes online on this particular problem) - perhaps with the qualifier that it's Gauss's law for gravity. In my mind, the divergence theorem is the more general case of an arbitrary vector field $mathbf{F}$, without identifying, say, $nablacdotmathbf{F}$ or $mathbf{F}cdotmathbf{hat{n}}mathrm{d}A$ as another physical quantity of interest.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago












  • Wow, there is a "Gauss's law for gravity." They will name anything after that guy, I swear. That is really a super confusing terminology, given that the mathematical principals have their own names...
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion Honestly, it's almost as confusing as the term "Euler's equation", which can apply to half a dozen different identities and laws. . . I'll make some edits to make things maybe a bit clearer, though - thanks for the input.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago














  • 1




    Terminology alert! You're actually applying divergence theorem (which, according to Wikipdia, is itself sometimes called Gauss's theorem, though I've never heard that) to gravity, whereas Gauss's law is application of the same divergence theorem to electrostatics. Divergence theorem is itself a specialized case of Stokes' theorem, which is how I would have described your method.
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion I've always heard this particular usage referred to as Gauss's law, too (note the Wikipedia page I linked too, as well as many notes online on this particular problem) - perhaps with the qualifier that it's Gauss's law for gravity. In my mind, the divergence theorem is the more general case of an arbitrary vector field $mathbf{F}$, without identifying, say, $nablacdotmathbf{F}$ or $mathbf{F}cdotmathbf{hat{n}}mathrm{d}A$ as another physical quantity of interest.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago












  • Wow, there is a "Gauss's law for gravity." They will name anything after that guy, I swear. That is really a super confusing terminology, given that the mathematical principals have their own names...
    – kingledion
    5 hours ago












  • @kingledion Honestly, it's almost as confusing as the term "Euler's equation", which can apply to half a dozen different identities and laws. . . I'll make some edits to make things maybe a bit clearer, though - thanks for the input.
    – HDE 226868
    5 hours ago








1




1




Terminology alert! You're actually applying divergence theorem (which, according to Wikipdia, is itself sometimes called Gauss's theorem, though I've never heard that) to gravity, whereas Gauss's law is application of the same divergence theorem to electrostatics. Divergence theorem is itself a specialized case of Stokes' theorem, which is how I would have described your method.
– kingledion
5 hours ago






Terminology alert! You're actually applying divergence theorem (which, according to Wikipdia, is itself sometimes called Gauss's theorem, though I've never heard that) to gravity, whereas Gauss's law is application of the same divergence theorem to electrostatics. Divergence theorem is itself a specialized case of Stokes' theorem, which is how I would have described your method.
– kingledion
5 hours ago














@kingledion I've always heard this particular usage referred to as Gauss's law, too (note the Wikipedia page I linked too, as well as many notes online on this particular problem) - perhaps with the qualifier that it's Gauss's law for gravity. In my mind, the divergence theorem is the more general case of an arbitrary vector field $mathbf{F}$, without identifying, say, $nablacdotmathbf{F}$ or $mathbf{F}cdotmathbf{hat{n}}mathrm{d}A$ as another physical quantity of interest.
– HDE 226868
5 hours ago






@kingledion I've always heard this particular usage referred to as Gauss's law, too (note the Wikipedia page I linked too, as well as many notes online on this particular problem) - perhaps with the qualifier that it's Gauss's law for gravity. In my mind, the divergence theorem is the more general case of an arbitrary vector field $mathbf{F}$, without identifying, say, $nablacdotmathbf{F}$ or $mathbf{F}cdotmathbf{hat{n}}mathrm{d}A$ as another physical quantity of interest.
– HDE 226868
5 hours ago














Wow, there is a "Gauss's law for gravity." They will name anything after that guy, I swear. That is really a super confusing terminology, given that the mathematical principals have their own names...
– kingledion
5 hours ago






Wow, there is a "Gauss's law for gravity." They will name anything after that guy, I swear. That is really a super confusing terminology, given that the mathematical principals have their own names...
– kingledion
5 hours ago














@kingledion Honestly, it's almost as confusing as the term "Euler's equation", which can apply to half a dozen different identities and laws. . . I'll make some edits to make things maybe a bit clearer, though - thanks for the input.
– HDE 226868
5 hours ago




@kingledion Honestly, it's almost as confusing as the term "Euler's equation", which can apply to half a dozen different identities and laws. . . I'll make some edits to make things maybe a bit clearer, though - thanks for the input.
– HDE 226868
5 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131682%2fplanetary-cave-gravity-inside-a-non-concentric-shell%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Understanding the information contained in the Deep Space Network XML data?

Ross-on-Wye

Eastern Orthodox Church